|
|
|
|
|
|
by qsort
2068 days ago
|
|
|
> And if you had originally stated your point that way, I would probably pointed out that there is equally no evidence that it will not be useful, if it turns out to be the case. No objections, but isn't it a bit weird to argue that we should do that just in case it might be useful someday? We'll deal with it when it comes up. > Clearly, I failed to get my point across I'm sorry, I'm pretty sure there's an argument but I just don't get it. I'm not really following the train of thought anymore. >> I'll take the seventh.
>? - I'm not familiar with this expression. Play on words: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus |
|
|
That is not an argument that we should do that just in case it might be useful someday, it is just a response to the quoted statement. As you know, I am not in favor of the current usage of "intelligence" in AI, and the only thing we differ on in that regard is whether it matters much.
> I'm sorry, I'm pretty sure there's an argument but I just don't get it.
It is an argument that ontologies are not privileged, canonical or fixed ways of representing the world; they have to conform to current knowledge as it evolves, or be replaced, and they are only interesting if they can "earn their keep" by being useful. Consequently, I do not think your argument from ontology, that this abusage of "intelligence" is a big deal, is definitive.